Chile court rejects war crimes suit against Israel justices

Chile court rejects war crimes suit against Israel justices

[JURIST] A court in Chile on Saturday rejected a war crimes lawsuit filed against three justices on the Israeli Supreme Court [official website] who authorized the construction of a security wall for the Israeli settlements in the West bank. The lawsuit [JURIST report] was filed in Chile under universal jurisdiction principles because the impacted landowners [Times of Israel report] lived in Chile. However the court rejected [Ma’an report] the lawsuit in part due to the fact that Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute [text, PDF] and as a result is not subjected to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website]. The Palestine Federation of Chile [advocacy website] helped bring the lawsuit [press release, in Spanish] and has promised to appeal the decision to the supreme court of Chile.

Recent conflicts between Israel and Palestine [HRW backgrounder] over settlements in the occupied West Bank have raised concerns over possible human rights violations. In March the spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said [JURIST report] that the office is concerned about the apparent extra-judicial execution of a Palestinian man in the West Bank. In January Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged [JURIST report] businesses to cease operations in Israel settlements. In August 2015 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged both sides of the conflict [JURIST report] to reconcile and move towards peace after an attack occurred in the West Bank village of Duma, where Jewish extremists allegedly set fire to a Palestinian home while the family slept. Last year HRW alleged [HRW report] that Israeli settlement farmers in the occupied West Bank are using Palestinian child laborers in dangerous conditions in violation of international laws.

One thought on “Chile court rejects war crimes suit against Israel justices

  1. The fact that a country is not signatory to the Rome Treaty and automatically thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is irrelevant to the fact of being subjected to the jurisdiction of an universal law, created by a country!

    A universal law, created by as in this case Chile, has the intention and the purpose to be valid universally, without the restriction (and or limitation) of a(n) international law or relevant international court, and such a universal law, created by a individual nation, has jurisdiction over an in all cases that it is created for, as in this case the jurisdiction of matters that involve nationals of the country that have created the universal law!

    Chilean subjects have been subjected to activities that have been created by the state of Israel, i.e. the creation and building of a separation wall, and thus the jurisdiction of the universal law, meaning that whenever a national of the country that has created such a universal law are subjected to an action by a country impacting the national, the universal law is valid to be implemented!

    The fact that the country that has created a law, or took a decision that had impact on the national of the country that created the universal law is either yes or not a member of an international tribunal like the ICC is irrelevant to the jurisdiction of the universal law!

    The actual purpose of an universal law is to have jurisdiction on and to matters that are affecting nationals of the country that has created the universal law, and were the effect on a national of the country that has created the universal law can not be decided upon by an international tribunal like the ICC, because the state which decisions affect the national but is not a member of an international tribunal which can thus not decide on the matter, because of the absence of membership of that country/state!

    An example:
    The United States of America (USA) is not a member of the ICC, because the USA is not a signatory of the Rome Treaty, though the USA has created a universal law that allows and gives the USA to have jurisdiction of and about all American citizens outside the USA, to protect them.
    This means that whenever an American citizen is sentenced to a imprisonment the USA in a country that is not under the jurisdiction of the USA the USA has jurisdiction to even invade that country and release that American citizen from the prison he/she is held in, and bring that American citizen under the direct jurisdiction, i.e. on American soil, of the USA!

    That universal law has effect on American citizens who are abroad, and who are subjected to the jurisdiction of another country. This American universal law enables the USA to overrule the jurisdiction of even the ICC when the ICC would convict an American citizen to a sentence!

    A universal law by a country enable and allows a country to rule over matters that affect a national of the country that has created such an universal law, regardless of the national laws of the country that ruled against a national of the country that has created a universal law, and or even the international laws!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s